Interethnic Spaces of Serbian and Hungarian Language Use in Vojvodina a Language Attitude Study1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 4, 2 (2012) 373-384 Interethnic Spaces of Serbian and Hungarian Language Use in Vojvodina A Language Attitude Study1 Eleonóra KOVÁCS RÁCZ University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Philosophy Department of Hungarian Literature and Linguistics [email protected] Abstract. This study elaborates on the attitudes of the informants towards Hungarian and Serbian languages in situations that seem useful. It does not refer to how the languages are used, but it only shows the informants’ opinions about it. Both in the case of Hungarian and Serbian the informants talk about the same interethnic spaces, however, concerning frequency, there are great differences. In our opinion the frequency of the guidelines in the study is in direct proportion to the language use. The study discusses interethnic spaces because the ratios do not approach 100% in any case. This means that the rate does not emphasise the exclusive use of one or the other language or their importance, and does not exclude the interethnic nature of the language scene. None of the guidelines in Hungarian stand out as the ratio does in the cases of public matters and the offices in the aspect of Serbian. Informants consider Hungarian the most useful inside the family, but Serbian in managing public matters. These settings are the most common interethnic spaces. Keywords: interethnic spaces, language attitude, survey, Hungarian, Serbian 1. Introduction This study, based on the questionnaires collected, presents the interethnic fields of 16 Hungarian settlements where the Hungarian and Serbian language use seems equally important. The research has been conducted in the course of the 1 The study has been written as a project no. 178017 of the Serbian Ministry of Education and Science. 373 374 E. Kovács Rácz language attitude study. It gives an insight not into the real language use, but – as it is common in attitude studies in sociolinguistics – it talks about the beauty of the languages or their variations, assesing the usefulness of the language and its position (Kovács Rácz 2011). The language attitude study that was done among the Hungarians in Vojvodina is a product of a well-planned, organised research. The idea came as a continuation of the Hungarian (Kontra 2003, 2006), Transylvanian (Péntek 1998), Transcarpathian (Csernicskó 1998), Upper Hungarian (Lanstyák 2000; Sándor 2000, 2001) and Vojvodinian (Göncz 1999a, 1999b) researches. However, we also studied the language attitude of the minorities living in Hungary like the Romanians (Borbély 2000a, 2000b, 2002, 2003a, 2003b), the Germans (Bindorffer 2004), the Slovaks (Gyivicsán 1993) and the Romani (Pálmainé 2007, 2008). This study is part of the sociolinguistic study about the Hungarian language attitude research of the Carpathian Basin. Its aim is to show the viewpoint of the Hungarian informants in attitude researches in Vojvodina. Nevertheless, it also reflects on the attitudes of Hungarians towards Serbian and their own language, and through this it describes and classifies the interethnic spaces that emerged according to the utility standpoint. Our open question was: “Give us your opinion about why and in which situations you think the Hungarian language is useful.” We asked the same question about the Serbian language. Both personal life conversations and the language of the public communication are connected to the interethnic spaces in Vojvodina. This is why language usage among the Hungarians in Vojvodina is in tight bond with the Serbian language (Göncz 1999a, Kovács Rácz 2011). In a previous survey, the locations of interethnic spaces were examined from the familial sphere to more public fields (Kovács Rácz 2011). Since we conducted a language attitude survey, it is important to emphasise that these interethnic spaces are not based upon real language usage, but on the opinions and viewpoints of the informants about the usefulness of Hungarian and Serbian. Communicating with a person from the clergy – according to the informants – seems to be an interethnic space in the least among Hungarians in Vojvodina, because 98% of the informants speak only or mostly Hungarian in these situations. Moreover, 89% of the informants speak Hungarian inside the family with their spouse, 92% with their children, 45% in the company of their friends, 42% with their superior, 17% at the bank or at the post office and only 6% use Hungarian exclusively or mostly with an official. Interethnic spaces, regarding the usefulness of Hungarian, are most common at workplace or in the company of friends. The higher (or the lower) the percentage showing the frequency of the language use is, the less we can talk about interethnic spaces because in these cases the language use is shifted towards one or the other language. Interethnic Spaces of Serbian and Hungarian Language Use in Vojvodina 375 We are going to show interethnic spaces that are – according to the informants – settings of speaking situations of private life, on the one hand, and of public life, on the other. During the survey, 1165 informants made statements about speaking situations where they expressed their opinions on the importance of both Hungarian and Serbian. The conversational situation scenes are interethnic spaces connecting the Hungarian and Serbian nations. They were indicated by the Hungarians who live in the cluster and in the diaspora in Vojvodina. Our aim is to draw a parallel between the opinions of the Hungarians living in the cluster and those living in the diaspora. With this research our aim is to contribute to the cognition of the language attitude of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin. The described interethnic spaces give us additional information to this. Our further aim is to elaborate on the different opinions of the Hungarians living in cluster and diaspora in Vojvodina. It is a quite important sociolinguistic aspect regarding Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin. 2. Hungarian cluster, Hungarian diaspora and Hungarian isolate in Vojvodina It is not an easy task to define the words Hungarian cluster and Hungarian diaspora, because they have already appeared in different approaches in the specialised literature (Barlai–Gábrity 2008). Researchers took into consideration the population number, the administrative units (e.g. the Hungarian local governments have assumed the existence of the Hungarian cluster until recently), as well as the Hungarian secondary schools (Fülöp–Kolozsvári 1995). Our definition is based on th Banat. In these two regions they comprise almost half of the population (approx. 45%) (their total number here is 165,732). 57% of southern Hungarians2 live here. The other regions’ turning into a diaspora is inevitable. (Barlai-Gábrity 2008: 17) The previously mentioned authors mark Subotica municipality as the largest Hungarian cluster, since 57,000 Hungarians live here in the area. According to the 2002 national census – because we do not have the results of the 2011 census yet – we conducted the survey in the following Hungarian speaking settlements: Cluster: 2 Hungarians in Vojvodina (editor’s note). 376 E. Kovács Rácz Diaspora: Kula (Kúla), Zrenjanin (Nagybecskerek), Rusko Selo (Kisorosz), Novi Sad (Újvidék), Srbobran (Szenttamás), Temerin, Jermenovci (Ürményháza), Novi Itebej (Magyarittabé), Torda, Hetin (Tamásfalva); Isolate: Ivanovo (Sándoregyháza). Ivanovo, Skorenovac (Székelykeve) and Vojlovica (Hertelendifalva) are settlements that belong to the South Banat district. They are surrounded by Serbian population and they form a native and dialectical isolate in the sub-Danubian region. This grouping considers only the ratio of the population and does not dwell on administrative units (local governments) and educational possibilities. 3. The more useful language The importance of the guidelines considering languages are also language attitudes, and they belong to the realm of language prestige, like the judgement of language beauty, the degree of difficulty and language knowledge. Language attitude is the opinion about the language or its variation that can be positive or negative (Kovács Rácz 2011: 11). During the survey, the informants gave their reasons to the situations where they thought their mother tongue was important. Some situations agree with the theories mentioned before in the Introduction and they consist of several interethnic spaces that mark the location. The informants’ answers are shown in the chart. The locations of the interethnic spaces are classified into thematic units according to the communicational situations previously mentioned. 3.1. Interethnic spaces in connection to the usefulness of the Hungarian in Vojvodina Table 1. The thematic groups of the interethnic spaces (Source: the author’s own calculations) Interethnic fields Cluster Diaspora Family and friends 130 265 Everyday life and official administration 48 68 Literature, Internet and the media 5 4 Environment and communication 52 54 Every time and everywhere 34 14 Culture, education and healthcare 24 36 Answers 293 441 Interethnic Spaces of Serbian and Hungarian Language Use in Vojvodina 377 According to the answers received, we have formed the following groups according to the usefulness of Hungarian: 1. Family, friends and entertainment are settings of personal life therefore they are in the same thematic group. 2. In the Everyday life and official administration category we meet the following situations in the informants’ answers: shopping in the stores or at the markets, practising religion in the church,